Pages

Sunday, September 25, 2011

We have moved on from gluing our ears to radio sets to sitting comfortably on the couch in-front of television sets to watch games. Our eyes saw what was happening in the latter, but our ears were hungry for running information coming in.

The only difference between the two audio commentaries, is that, for TV, you can see what is happening, and the description required can be minimized. Thus, television commentary allowed room for expertise and opinions on air. You could see the shine on one side, and someone would tell what that would do. On a radio, there isn't enough time to describe all of it. Description - necessary, explanation - bonus.

Of-late, cricket commentary on television has been a joke. From needless promotion of sundry tournaments to verbal fights to a complete vomit of mis-information, one is tempted to turn the volume down to mute, or go for new-age audio commentary.

Most commentary teams comprise of ex-cricketers, or famed cricket journalists, with varied experience on the microphone. If not for a few good blokes, telly commentary could've been a non-mandatory option for viewers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I say commentary, it ought to mean description of the game going out in the ground. 3 out of 5 times, the commentator is either talking about birds, or praising the local government for hosting the match, or talking about the fellow commentator's age old experience from 20 years ago, or worse, hair on their head. If I wanted all that, I would go to a theatre.

As a kid, I would love to hear Tony Greig go "Sauchin Taendulka" and Gavaskar and Shastri talk... For, I only had eyes. My ear would sense cricketers' names and excite me. Today, when I hear Shastri, I turn the volume down to mute. If a man with only so many lines as a back-stage actor can be paid so much, I fail to see the purpose of being called a "commentator".

The verbal diarrhea that is involved is just too much to handle. And gosh, what levels of pointlessness are poured into the commentary by some examples like Arun Lol, Atul Wasan, Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, Russel Arnold, Ranjit Fernando, Danny Morrison, Amir Sohail, Brad Hogg and other forgettable names. Ranjit Fernando changes his views every 17 minutes, 17 seconds if we are talking about a close run out. Arun Lol talks about the birds on his tie, while LSK hasn't understood what reverse swing is.

Maybe the country with the best commentary team would be West Indies - Cozier, Bishop, Holding. England has Bumble, Botham, Gower, Hussain (I miss Boycott). Indian subcontinent has no good commentator. Australia has Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell, Slater, Taylor (not great, not bad). Mark Nicholas adds a bit of excitement, cricket-ingly so.

In football, the commentators announce the goal, wait for a few moments, then describe the celebration and a little snippet, and then explain the goal on the replay along with expert comments.

In NBA, there is a play-by-play who describes every pass, every drive and the attempt, while an expert describes the tactics and science. And they are legends, honoured for their careers as commentators. In NBA, last minute plays and highlight plays are not commented for a few seconds until the audience's volume comes down. Half the way across the world, it is a hair-raising experience to listen to Kevin Harlan, Joe & Stu (Lakers, you see), Mike Breen call the play-by-play. Experts are a whole different set of people.

Tennis commentators don't even talk when the ball is in play. They start only after the audience is mid-way into their clapping.

There, that can be applied to cricket. I'm sick and tired of "the ball is up in the aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair" followed by "taken" or "dropped". I can see that. You can do the "swiveling in the air" and "white back-ground" or "lost in the crowd" part, after the ball has come down. After. But no, they have to squeeze in their lines while the ball is up in the air, because once it lands, it is time to call it a "Karbonn kamaal catch, or "car crash broken bone drop".

And I pity these Hindi commentators, who have NO CLUE what-so-ever about the field placement because, obviously, they aren't there at the ground. They're commentating off their own TV sets.

I may not be any great commentator, but I'm no idiot to accept what they all serve as commentary. They're paid to commentate, we pay to hear them.

Gavaskar will tell you about his amateur commentary days alongside Richie Benaud... Once, while the two were commentating in the box, the batsman had scored his century. Young commentator, Gavaskar, reached for his mic in excitement and let the world hear it, and Richie Benaud put his hand on Gavaskar's arm, silently prompting him to quit it. It was to let the viewers watch the batsman's celebration, engulfed by the appreciation from the crowd via claps, whistles and praises, before the commentators can come into the scene and add their inputs to it.

With all the bizarre commentary on television, internet radio has become one viable option. Groups of individuals have taken it upon themselves to entertain the world of cricket. Test Match Sofa covers up all English games, and Pitch-Invasion covers all Indian games (IPL included). They serve good commentary, which is informative, interactive and enjoyable. Reading your tweets on air, interacting with a group of listeners, freedom to make sarcastic comments, unbound by contracts to hail something...these networks are giving the television commentary a bit of a competition.

With more people turning to such media, one doesn't mind turning off the volume. So one wouldn't care a rat's ass about Ravi Shastri's feelings, or why Gavaskar is unhappy about being finger-pointed about his "DLF Maximum" trumpets, or Danny Morrison's description of the cheerleader on the dais.